The New York Times published an article yesterday that highlights the inherent problem in setting blanket rules for obtaining federal money for education: human elements, like innovation, creativity, and a passion for your job are ignored when there are only four possible solutions to a problem like low test scores.
First of all, I wasn’t aware of the requirements for failing school districts to qualify for aid. Schools must either shutter their doors, let a charter school come in and replace you, fire half the staff, or… fire the principal and “transform” the school? I’m hoping the Times simply chose to be vague on that last one, as I’m not sure what the difference is between firing your principal and half the staff, or just firing your principal and pledging to change things up next year.
And as I said on Twitter, there are 90,000 public schools across America. How can you possibly fix each of them by applying these four general solutions to their problems?
In any case, Joyce Irvine was sacrificed in order to grab millions of dollars in federal aid. She recognized this, saying “You can buy a lot of help for children with that money.” Indeed, you can, but at what price? Irvine was in the process of developing a strong arts curriculum, something often missing from schools competing to raise standardized test scores, and something she saw as important to meet the needs of her diverse student population.
Ironically, Irvine won’t be joining the unemployment line; she’s now the district’s school improvement administrator, a position created in order to address this situation. In order to fill a budget gap, the Burlington School District has now created a new job and, thus, a new salary.
ShareThisEduDemic introduced its newest giveaway today, offering a prize to the educator on Twitter who the community votes as most influential. Despite the irony of including a noted opponent of frivolous rewards, Alfie Kohn, in a contest that awards you a prize for doing exactly what you should be doing, it did prompt me to think about the actual act of influencing others.
Jeff Thomas posted a response to the giveaway this afternoon, arguing that his role on Twitter isn’t to influence anyone but to share and collaborate, instead. I don’t feel that there is any difference, but I think I differ from him in my definition of influence. Influencing someone else doesn’t have to take their own thoughts and feelings out of the equation, and there is still room for critical thinking to occur. In my opinion, influencing someone can get the thinking process started.
So what does it take to influence your fellow educators on the Internet? I’ve got the six-step process right here, and you don’t even have to pay a single cent.
Disclaimer: I have, admittedly, not done a lot of research into the Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” program. I’m not sure why I have avoided reading much into it; it’s not as if my career will someday hinge on its success or failure, right? I’ve got the general overview, but I’ve yet to delve deep into what anyone is thinking about the implications of the plan.
But I was reading Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards tonight and I came across this paragraph. It stood out to me as a potential roadblock in the way of meaningful collaboration among states to further our goals for education reform:
“Of all the ways by which people are led to seek rewards, I believe the most destructive possible arrangement is to limit the number that are available. To do so is to replace the possibility that people will try to assist each other with the near certainty that they will try to defeat each other. But whether it is simply permitted by a standard individual incentive system, or actually required by a race for awards, contests are destructive for several reasons beyond the fact that they preclude the sort of teamwork that leads to success.”
Is this a viable complaint with the Race to the Top program? Do you think that states might actually shy away from helping other states out in an effort to make sure that their proposals are the most innovative and effective?
My personal opinion is that we’ll never see such rivalry start from the bottom up: the sheer number of educators who are connected online and sharing their teaching methods and strategies with each other daily is a testament to our inherent desire to work together. But as you near the top (no pun intended) and your salary and employment begin to depend on your ability to rein in spending and find sources of funding for your school, might we see administrators and states’ Departments of Education become a little more walled off?
The Accelerated Reader program: a centerpiece of reading instruction in more than 75,000 public school systems across the United States, and yet another divisive battleground among educators. It shares that status with a variety of other programs and methods used in the classroom amidst great debate: behavior charts, gold stickers, a treasure chest chock full of prizes for when you finally sit down in your seat and profess your obedience (with fingers crossed)… I digress.
I first encountered the Accelerated Reader program in the eighth grade. As an already avid reader, the burden of reading 75 points worth of books in a grading period wasn’t too overwhelming. In fact, I remember being asked once or twice to skip a test over a book I had read because, with my best intentions at heart, my teachers just weren’t sure that I was actually reading them. Of course I was reading them; the problem was my short-term memory, which was going into overdrive in an effort to remember names and places.
So what could possibly be so terrible about a program that is known for getting children, especially boys with a natural competitive drive, to read books? A lot, I would argue.
Educators and administrators will agree that our desire for education renewal is driven by the realization that school is rarely authentic and doesn’t always reflect the actual way that information is gained, processed, and applied in a real world setting. Nowhere is that more obvious than when you consider public education’s “carrot on a stick” method of getting students to do everything. We assign homework for drill and practice, but also because we feel a need to give students a grade. Grades are highly coveted among parents and children because if you work hard enough, at the end of the month you’ll see your name added to a list of the principal’s best and brightest. Verbal rewards are given out every thirty seconds and God forbid you miss a spelling word. Don’t you realize there is a $0.05 sticker at stake?!
And as everyone knows, graduating from high school and entering the real world comes with its own share of graded assignments, a list of the boss’ favorites, and constant verbal praise and encouragement. And when you wake up in the morning, the only thing keeping you from rolling over and falling back asleep is that mental image of a nice, shiny sticker… right? Read the rest of this entry »
I don’t like to complain.
Well, I’ll rephrase that. I don’t like complaining when I know that I could possibly do something to make things better. That’s why I’m experiencing my first love/hate relationship with one of my pre-service education classes: “Technological Applications in Education”. Read the rest of this entry »
Lately, I’ve gotten used to the idea that most of my thoughts get lost in an echo chamber; I don’t have thousands of Twitter followers like some of the teachers and administrators I frequently read, and on Facebook, I rarely feel like there is room for any of my thoughts among the idle chatter. Generally, my audience consists of my mom, sipping away at her coffee in the morning as I drone on and on about a topic. So to finally have something I’ve written appear in the local newspaper is, from my perspective, an incredibly exciting opportunity. Even if only ten people read it, my readership now includes more than just a very patient mom. Read the rest of this entry »
In the wake of the decision to fire the entire teaching staff of Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, the press has been clamoring on to the opportunity to ask a pressing question – should we be doing more to get rid of bad teachers? Newsweek recently ran an article with a headline sure to stir the pot: “Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers”. And just a few weeks after approximately 100 people lost their jobs in Rhode Island, recent graduates of the high school began to show their outrage towards the decision and its supporters, including President Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. The line in the sand has been drawn, and now you simply have to ask yourself, who is right? Read the rest of this entry »
An extensive New York Times article showed up in my feed a few weeks back, “How Christian Were the Founders?”, by Russell Shorto, the author of Descartes’ Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason. A large part of the story was aimed at the enduring conflict between conservative Christians, who believe in the creation of our country as a purely Christian nation, and the secularist agenda. A debate of that kind could go on for months and is not the kind of editorial I’d like to write at this time. Instead, I’d rather express my discontent for a practice that the Texas State Board of Education gleefully participates in every few years: the adoption of new textbook guidelines that serve a blatantly religious and political agenda. Read the rest of this entry »
